> And just because it is HTML doesn't mean that it's spam or from a "newbie."
> I've seen quite a few recent messages that are text-only, but are spam
> through and through.
I’m neither a newbie nor a spammer. Until now, I’ve just blindly used plain text because I had always assumed that everyone reented receiving HTML. This discussion has opened up my eyes. In fact, I’m really happy. When I have to use MS Outlook, it uses rich text and allows
- bold
- italic
- color
All three are really helpful. Also, as you can see, indenting helps set up bullet points or numbers.
None of these things should a priori be considered offensive. In fact, it is proper to italicize words such as a priori.
Many years ago I programmed and used an Apple IIe computer. It had green text on a black screen, and inverse text as well. No WYSIWYG. While it worked fine, I really enjoyed my first Mac. It opened up a world of color and creativity. The display on the screen approached the clarity and correctness of the printed page. It has always seemed odd that we “weren’t supposed to” take advantage of this aspect of our computers while using email.
I did an experiment, and found that the size of the HTML email is only minimally larger than the plain text email. To prove the point, I’m going to convert this email to text after I send it to the group and resend it so that you can see for yourself that judicious use of HTML does not destroy bandwidth. Also, it will show anyone who automatically deletes HTML that they are missing out on an interesting empirical observation.
--
Bruce
____________________________________________________
B R U C E K. klutch-at-erols.com
